Table of Contents

SUPREME COURT DECISION FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES HOW COURTS TREAT INTERNAL PRISON DECISIONS
John L. Hill

MANITOBA GIVING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN SUPPORT OF CRIME VICTIMS
Terry Davidson

THE CASE F OR HUMAN-CENTRED ELDER JUSTICE
Heather Campbell Pope

SASKATCHEWAN INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO MODERNIZE DEFAMATION LAWS
Terry Davidson

SUPREME COURT DECISION FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES HOW COURTS TREAT INTERNAL PRISON DECISIONS

By John L. Hill

Originally published on Law360 Canada, © LexisNexis Canada Inc.

Lawyers practising prison law have a new and very powerful arrow added to their quiver.

On Nov. 21, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38. It ruled that federal inmates may use habeas corpus to challenge decisions refusing to transfer them to lower-security prisons.

The court held that prisoners retain residual liberty, the degree of freedom they have within a correctional institution, and that security classification directly affects that liberty. A denial of a recommended transfer to a less restrictive setting can therefore amount to a deprivation of liberty.

In the cases of Frank Dorsey and Ghassan Salah, both inmates had been recommended for transfer to minimum security, but senior correctional officials rejected those recommendations. Their attempts to challenge these refusals through habeas corpus were dismissed by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, which both held that such decisions were not reviewable.

Traditionally, the only remedy would be to grieve the refusal to a transfer to lesser security, a process that could take a year or more before bringing an application for judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court’s latest decision upends this practice. Writing for the majority, Justice Mary T. Moreau emphasized that habeas corpus is intended to be a flexible, accessible safeguard against unlawful restraints on liberty.

If an inmate can show (1) a deprivation of liberty and (2) a legitimate basis to question the lawfulness of that deprivation, a court must review the decision. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeals and affirmed that improper refusals to reclassify a prisoner to a lower security level may be scrutinized through habeas corpus.

“This Court has recognized that the writ, as both a right and remedy, must remain flexible and purposive in order to respond to unlawful deprivations of liberty. Moreover, the writ must remain available and accessible to those individuals whose liberty has been most restricted living within penitentiary walls. These individuals, already facing significant deprivations of their liberty, should have access to the expedient and effective relief long offered by habeas corpus where the deprivation of liberty becomes unlawful. A qualitative approach must be taken when assessing the meaning of ‘deprivation of liberty,’ which focuses on the actual effect of a particular form of confinement.”

This decision is precedent-setting for several key reasons:

First, it expands the scope of habeas corpus in the prison context. Before this ruling, many courts held that security-classification decisions, including refusals to transfer inmates to lower security, were not reviewable by habeas corpus. Inmates often had to rely on slower, more technical judicial-review processes in the Federal Court. The Supreme Court has now confirmed that habeas corpus can directly review transfer and classification decisions when they affect an inmate’s liberty. This is a significant broadening of the remedy.

Second, it recognizes that security classification is equivalent to a deprivation of liberty. For the first time at the Supreme Court level, the court clearly states that an inmate’s residual liberty is meaningfully reduced by higher security placements. Furthermore, a refusal to lower a security level can amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Third, it strengthens judicial oversight of correctional decision-making. The decision signals that courts must step in when inmates raise legitimate concerns about unlawful restrictions on their liberty.

This increases accountability for senior correctional managers and CSC’s reclassification practices, which have been frequently criticized for inconsistency or risk aversion.

The Dorsey decision confirms that habeas corpus remains a broad, accessible remedy.

It is expected that this decision may affect a wide range of future prison cases because security classification underpins many decisions that prison administrators are tasked with making, such as access to programs, movement within the institution, eligibility for work releases and placement in structured intervention units or segregation-like conditions.

This decision could open the door to many more habeas corpus applications involving improper risk assessments, discriminatory or arbitrary classification decisions and failure to follow case-management recommendations.

The decision is precedent-setting because it fundamentally changes how courts treat internal prison decisions, recognizing them as judicially reviewable deprivations of liberty and significantly expanding inmates’ access to habeas corpus.

MANITOBA GIVING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN SUPPORT OF CRIME VICTIMS

By Terry Davidson

Originally published on Law360 Canada, © LexisNexis Canada Inc.

More than a dozen groups dedicated to helping victims of violent crime in Manitoba will receive money collected by the province through the seizing of criminal property.

Manitoba’s government is taking $750,000 from its Criminal Property Forfeiture (CPF) Fund and giving it to various bodies supporting those impacted by crimes such as sex assault, intimate partner violence and murder, according to a Nov. 14 news release.

The CPF fund includes a “funding stream” for Manitoba Justice’s Victim Services Branch, which provides support as per the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, it states.

The CPF fund distributes proceeds from the sale of seized criminal property to organizations focused on improving community safety.

“November is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and our government is strengthening its support for victims of intimate partner violence and other serious crimes throughout the province,” said Manitoba Justice Minister Matt Wiebe in a statement.

“Our public safety strategy commits to supporting Manitobans victimized by crime and we are able to help victims and their families rebuild their lives by redirecting the proceeds of criminal activity in Manitoba to valuable community programs.”

One of the initiatives receiving money is the Survivor’s Hope Crisis Centre’s Sexual Assault Recovery and Healing program, which is being given $30,000 to continue providing legal advocacy and counselling to victims of sexual and intimate partner violence.

Other groups include:

• Winnipeg’s Candace House, receiving $200,000 to continue providing wraparound services and “day refuge” for victims and families, some of whom may be navigating the court system.
• Manitoba Justice’s Victim Services, receiving $110,000 for supports such as the Victim Travel Fund, elder services and electronic monitoring.
• The Heartwood Healing Centre in Winnipeg, receiving $90,000 to support individual and group therapy for victims of childhood sexual abuse.
• The Western Manitoba Women’s Centre in Brandon, receiving $35,000 to supply women and gender-diverse people and their children in western Manitoba with trauma-informed counselling, advocacy and “inclusive programming.”

Another group receiving funds is the Parkland Crisis Centre and Women’s Shelter in the city of Dauphin, which is being given $35,000 to continue providing its services — which include emergency shelter, counselling and child and youth programs — to women and children fleeing intimate partner abuse.

“The Parkland Crisis Centre and Women’s Shelter is excited to announce the newly formed partnership with Victim Services to improve service accessibility within our community,” said Parkland’s executive director Kari Prawdzik. “The shelter is passionate about empowering individuals to break free from the cycles of violence and building healthier futures. Our organization’s goals are to assist in providing lifechanging support to those affected by family, intimate partner and gender-based violence.”

Other groups include Mount Carmel Clinic’s Sage House in Winnipeg, the Brandon Police Service’s victim services unit, and the child and youth program at Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad Inc.

According to Statistics Canada, Manitoba had 31,971 victims of police-reported violent crime in 2023. Rates were highest in the province’s “urban” and “rural” North.

THE CASE FOR HUMAN-CENTRED ELDER JUSTICE

By Heather Campbell Pope
Originally published on Law360 Canada,
© LexisNexis Canada Inc.

On a good day, 83-year-old Beatrice can still make a cup of tea and find her way to the park. But when she tries to fill out a digital form, the steps feel endless and confusing. For many people with dementia, even small hurdles can make it hard to get the help they need.

As more systems move online, a troubling gap is widening for many seniors and people with dementia. Tasks that once began with a conversation across a desk — applying for benefits, signing documents or seeking advice — are now hidden behind chatbots, automated menus and complex online forms. For individuals experiencing cognitive decline, these barriers can turn simple processes into overwhelming challenges.

When these same barriers extend into the legal system, justice can easily slip out of reach. Innovation and technology have created important new ways to deliver legal services, but they are not the right fit for everyone. For many older adults, especially those with dementia, the shift online can unintentionally create new hurdles. Balance and good practice mean keeping people — not platforms — at the centre.

Recent research reinforces this need. Pro Bono Ontario’s 2024 Gateways to Justice report recommends a continuum of virtual and in-person approaches, and the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly’s 2023 study concluded that in-person services are critical, noting that “virtual-only strategies have left seniors unable to fully access essential support systems and vital networks, exacerbating isolation and marginalization.” Both reports underscore the same conclusion: access to justice depends on human connection, not just digital convenience.

Courts, too, have shown that slowing down can serve justice. In R. v. Larocque, 2025 QCCQ 4763, the judge took deliberate care to ensure that an older witness — who was paralyzed, incontinent and living with a major neurocognitive disorder — was treated with patience and dignity. The court took breaks as needed and instructed counsel to keep questions short and simple, as the witness was easily overwhelmed.

In the judge’s words, “The process was long and tedious, but it was generally effective.”

Larocque illustrates that justice does not lose legitimacy when it slows down — it gains it.

Fairness is not always about speed; it is about taking the time to listen, adapt and ensure that everyone, regardless of ability, can meaningfully participate. This kind of patience is a quiet but powerful form of justice — one that moves at the speed of understanding.

Ensuring access to justice for people with dementia means more than just keeping up with technology; it means re-centering the human experience in a system that sometimes forgets its most vulnerable users. That responsibility belongs to all of us who work and volunteer in and around the justice system.

Across Canada, community legal clinics, pro bono lawyers and others have long provided essential, in-person support to seniors navigating the justice system. Their work has demonstrated how vital human connection is in resolving legal problems with dignity and understanding. My own grassroots efforts simply build on this foundation. Last month, I launched the Dementia Justice Clinic, a small initiative in Ottawa that provides free, in-person legal information to people with dementia and their families.

As a program without walls, I host information tables in community spaces such as libraries, community centres and farmers’ markets. I offer printed brochures from other non-profits, taking information that is online and placing it into the hands of those who may not know where to start. For many, a short conversation can be the first step toward finding support and feeling less alone.

I also visit retirement homes and other residential settings to reach seniors where they live. Many residents face mobility challenges or may not feel comfortable navigating community events on their own. By bringing resources directly into these spaces — through informal chats and small group sessions — I aim to make legal information a little easier to access and a little less intimidating.

To help people take the next step, I am building a directory of Ottawa lawyers who offer a free 30-minute consultation to people with dementia and their caregivers. Participating lawyers complete short readings on elder law ethics, capacity, elder abuse and dementia-friendly practices. An annual fee supports clinic operations. This initiative marks the beginning of a broader effort to expand capacity. Additional support would make it possible to strengthen training and grow the network of lawyers and pro bono services, while remaining alert to the risks posed by unscrupulous actors.

These are small steps that complement the valuable work many others are already doing, especially those who have long championed access to justice for seniors. My goal is simply to add one more piece to that collective effort — one table, one brochure, one conversation at a time. Each interaction is a reminder that justice doesn’t need to be fast to be accessible.

As dementia rates rise, the justice system must balance innovation with the personal touch that makes legal help meaningful. The goal is to create pathways that are simple, compassionate and human-centred. I encourage lawyers to join the directory and help ensure that people with dementia can access legal support in a way that works for them.

SASKATCHEWAN INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO MODERNIZE DEFAMATION LAWS

By Terry Davidson
Originally published on Law360 Canada,
© LexisNexis Canada Inc.

Saskatchewan is proposing legislative changes in a bid to modernize the province’s defamation laws, which would include eliminating the “outdated” distinction between libel and slander.

According to a Nov. 4 news release, the province’s government has introduced the Defamation Act, which would replace the “century-old” Libel and Slander Act — laws that have been in place since 1909.

The proposed change comes after the release of a report from the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan calling for the modernization of the legislation.

A key change would be eliminating the distinction between libel and slander. Instead, the legislation would simply refer to the offence of “defamation,” which would “encompass both written and spoken statements that harm an individual’s reputation.”

Libel offences are those in writing or published content, while slander involves those made verbally.

A government spokesperson confirmed that most Canadian provinces have “have abolished the common law distinction between libel and slander in their legislation” and now refer to both simply as defamation.

“Defamation includes both libel and slander and means the act of harming the reputation of another person to a third party or a false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation,” they told Law360 Canada.

Saskatchewan Justice Minister and Attorney General Tim McLeod said these amendments are needed because “the way information is shared has changed dramatically since 1909.”

“This new Act ensures that the rights of Saskatchewan people are secure and protected in the digital age, whether speech occurs in print, in broadcast, or online,” said McLeod in a statement. “It strikes a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation.”

The new legislation would also:

• Remove wording that refers specifically to “newspapers,” thus having the law apply equally to all publishers, including those in digital and online media.
• Authorize courts to issue “take-down” and “de-indexing” orders against third parties in a bid to address harmful online content that continues to circulate after initial publication.
• Establish a “single cause of action” for the publication and any later republication “of the same material by the same publisher.”

Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan chair Michael Milani said the proposed legislation “represents a significant step forward in modernizing Saskatchewan’s legal framework.”

In a statement, Milani went on to talk about the law commission’s report on the matter.

“The commission’s recommendations were guided by the need to protect the reputational rights of individuals, provide clarity and fairness, and ensure that our laws reflect the realities of today’s communication environment,” he said.

The law commission is responsible for reviewing and improving the province’s laws in a bid to make them clear and keep them current.